Digital Networks: Response to Comments

Sorry I haven't gotten to respond to comments on my blog, but I have tried my best in answering questions in a clear, coherent manner. Here it goes:

“Lanier (137) "Numerical popularity doesn't correlate with intensity of connection in the cloud." How do you respond?”

I am honestly going to try my best to fixate my mind into the days of Lanier, and attempt to analyze this quote.

I feel that Lanier is implying that the number of people that has viewed your content network does not amount to how strong your connection is with the people in that network. That is a really strong quote because many people think just because you have, for example, 100, 000 of views on youtube, that you have a strong connection with ALL 100,000 of those viewers/subscribers.  When Lanier discusses “lack of expression” when anonymous people make mash-ups of recorded music, I concur with his point that the original artist’s music becomes a “statistical distribution” when blended with other presentations, but just as long as the original artist’s work is shown and promoted first, shouldn’t that be enough? Besides, he should also consider that there are still 3^rd party copyright infringements that still lie within these networks. Lanier may have to consider that there is actually expression still involved in the artist’s original recorded music, but I feel this is where “power laws” steps in, creating the whole ranking process.

“how do you think Lanier would respond to your point that musicians have no choice but to submit to lock-in?”

He would probably say something in the lines of lock-in is allowing our creativity to diminish in this industry, and that we need to be able to break out of this “lock-in” system of technology that has bounded us, making us incapable of thinking for ourselves and doing what we love without technology.

“your points on human identity in the first paragraph are interesting. they seem to me to expose a potential problem in Lanier's thinking, namely, too strong an opposition between what is human and what is technological. If our technologies are extensions of and supplements to who we are, then can we really think of who we are without them?”

I believe that we as people can ponder once in a while about not having our technologies present in our lives to truly recognize what we are grateful for having, but by doing so, we can bring ourselves back to the times, when, technology was not as prevalent in our lives as it is today. For instance, a few days ago, my friend had written a card for her boyfriend, and had trouble writing the mailing information (i.e. return address, stamp, etc. ) She asked for my assistance while stating, “Writing an e-mail is not this difficult, why is doing this so difficult?” I responded, “Well, when the soldiers during the wars had to write letters to their loved ones, did they feel it was so difficult?” I feel that although technologies are extensions of ourselves and our interests (iPod Touch for me ^_^), we should not neglect all that we have learned  and accomplished without the usage of technology.

"Is a commercial internet in everyone's interest? Or, is it user interest and satisfaction that drives the technologies?"

 I believe that it is in the interest and demands of users and consumers that drives these technologies, If technologies weren’t made to accommodate people’s interest, why buy them? If some of these technologies did not have a purpose and were just useless, who would consider them?

"lyndastarr do you want computers to "shop for us" in the future?

If you are implying computers giving us options about what to purchase, along with special online deals that spark our interests and guilty shopping pleasures, then yes. If you are suggesting humans having no input whatsoever in what they purchase along with the limitations that follow, then no.

"I like the way your personalized the post with an anecdote; what's your take as an artist on file sharing, RIAA, lawsuits, and things of that nature? I recently read a critique of commercial filmmaking by Francis Ford Coppola of all people and am always interested on where people stand on these issues."

I think file sharing along with leaking are HARMFUL  detriments  to artistry and craft, and it has contributed to the diminishing advancement of record companies and artist’s careers. I view file-sharing as The Grinch Who Stole Royalties. However, some budding and established artists still have hope with the likes of RealPlayer, Yahoo, and the top-dog of legal music downloading, iTunes.

As for the RIAA, I understand that utilizing copyrighted content is wrong and all, but sending individual letters like this:

 

Are just pushing it.

Here’s their Goal:

Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and, in the digital space, to give legal online services a chance to flourish.

I feel legal online services as I aforementioned have already flourished. There’s still people out there who don’t know what torrents are (which I consider the Grim Reaper of entertainment in its entirety but I am still a guilty victim of it) But speaking as an unsigned artist, I can say that file sharing has allowed many underground artists who are not signed to a label to have their music heard, even if it’s just through Mediafire , Frostwire, or other file-sharing sites. Speaking as an established artist possibly in the future, it has hurt many careers, but has allowed the development of free mixtapes to arise that the labels don’t necessarily release (and most of those that are put out actually sound better than the actual albums). Even Drake has been lenient with his music being leaked.